.38 vs .357- Law Enforcement Edition

Which was the best Law Enforcement cartridge?

  • .38 Special

    Votes: 30 32.3%

  • .357 Magnum

    Votes: 63 67.7%
  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .
M

Model12Win

Moderator
We all know the days of the .38 special and .357 magnum service revolver are long over. But when revolvers were carried by cops, they mostly were either of these two calibers. Some of the top loads were classics like the 158 grain LSWCHP in .38 special +P (the FBI load) and the 125 grain SJHP in .357 magnum.

This is asking about the use in full-size service revolvers with a 4-6" barrel, NOT snub nosed guns.

maxresdefault.jpg


1369.jpg


For the purposes of Law Enforcement use, highway patrol, street cops, etc. which do you think was the best cartridge for the boys in blue? I'd love to hear from those who used to carry revolvers on duty as well.

Thanks all!
 
Last edited:
I really struggled with this poll. I wanted so much to vote for the .38 Special.

Then, I just could not justify it since my thinking is the ballistics are superior with the .357 Magnum. I want to believe the chances are an officer might be able to shoot the .38 Special with more accuracy and better follow-up shots.

I voted for the .357 Magnum; although we know the long term use of the .38 Special had to of settled more situations. :(
 
I went with the .38 Special. I don't think there are many situations for an Leo that would be be solved by a .357 that a .38 couldn't also handle. I think the average person also shoots the .38 better than the .357.
 
I Carried a 357 mag for 20 years. My favorite duty load was the Winchester 145 grn STHP. There is no comparison between them.
 
I went with the .38 Special. I don't think there are many situations for an Leo that would be be solved by a .357 that a .38 couldn't also handle. I think the average person also shoots the .38 better than the .357.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been an LEO or carried either of these on duty?
 
Have you ever been an LEO or carried either of these on duty?
Click to expand...

Never been an Leo but have carried both. Do you have any examples of bad guys who were stopped by a .357 who wouldn't have been stopped by a .38?

I Carried a 357 mag for 20 years. My favorite duty load was the Winchester 145 grn STHP. There is no comparison between them.
Click to expand...

That's the load Mark Coates used, isn't it? I guess if you have confidence in a load, that might give you a psychological advantage over your opponent.
 
I voted for .38spl because it certainly resolved more conflicts than a .357 ever has. Just because a jackhammer is "more powerful" than a regular hammer that doesn't make it better for regular ol' nail driving.

I carry .357mag though myself because I'm a huge guy and it suits me. If I ran a department I'd issue .38sp every time though, more applicable for more people in more situations, ergo a better LEO caliber.
 
158grSWHP at 900fps vs 125grJHP at 1450fps.
357 for me.
So how much money was spent duplicating this 357 load in regards to the 357Sig?
Not to many new semi auto loads trying to duplicate the old 158 38spl.
 
For use in a large city, I would have to go with the .38. Much less chance of over-penetration, and endangering innocent people. In rural areas, the .357 in a heartbeat. Been there, done that.
 
Still carry my Smith model 10 2" in 38 spl. and the only time I felt it was inadquate was when a 450 lb black bear was thinking of climbing in the stand with me.
 
I would have voted "depends" if that was an option.

I spent 20 years with the Anchorage PD. Anchorage has a large animal problem, moose and bear.

Tons of moose in town creating hazards to people and traffic. I've had to put several down after encounters with vehicles. We also got calls to hang around school bus stops when moose/bear were reported in the area.

I carried a Model 28 loaded with LSWCs in 357, they have the needed penetration needed for these animals.

However if I policed the lower 48, I wouldn't feel under gunned with the 38 and that would be what I would carry.

Having been a firearms instructor for our department, I discovered few cops can handle the 357s.

I use a Model 64 in ICORE and other competitions, excellent revolver and would be my choice if I was on the job here.

Posted this before: Sucker was disrupting traffic. I got him as he was charging my patrol car. Went down with on shot in the neck with the above Model 28 & the load mentioned.

IMG_NEW.jpg
 
Someone above mentioned the so called FBI load as being a 158g bullet at 900 fps. The last time I chronographed some from a major manufacturer (I believe it was Remington) they came out of a 4" barreled revolver at an average of 814 fps, not 900. I've seen other reports saying the same thing, so I voted for the 357. If there actually was a 900 fps 158g load from a 4" barrel I might reconsider.

My department authorized the 357 Magnum revolver or the 45 ACP semi auto. I personally carried a 1911 but as the department's chief firearms instructor and range master I also qualified with a revolver, shooting factory ammo (Remington 125g SJHP 357 Mag). We had 400 armed personnel, 40% of them carrying revolvers. People can learn to manage the Magnum's recoil and blast, it's simply a matter of training.

Dave
 
I like both rounds, and depend on both.
I don't get it when people say the 357 is hard to control.
My last 357 was a 2.5" Model 19.
Even though I prefer the small magna grips with a Tgrip, I found it easy to shoot.
My current 357 is a 3" GP100. ..it is exceptionally easy to shoot with magnum ammo.
 
Last edited:
When I was a Sheriff's deputy in Nevada we all carried 357s as duty guns. Many of us carried 38 cal 2" revolvers as back-ups or off duty. But my department mandated the 357 as a belt gun, and I know of no other Nevada County that didn't. Later the new county Sheriff opened it up to the officers choice as long as long as the officer could qualify. After that point in time we started seeing a mix of 357s, 45s and a few 9mms.
I know there were some town PDs that were mandating 38s as duty carry guns, but very few of them. Las Vagas PD mandated 38s for a while and then went to 9MMs.

In those days Nevada Highway patrol also mandated the 357, and so did California highway patrol as I recall. Idaho and Utah also.

One thing I have kept track of since those years is the total number of shots fired per shooting and it is a sad fact that today the average cop has a LOT more rounds at his disposal and they fire a LOT more rounds per engagement, but they hit a lot less. Reno for example, back in the early 70s was averaging 3 rounds fired per kill on bad guys and very very few were wounded.

The last set of stats I was given from Reno from the years starting in 2000 and going to about 2009 is showing about 16 shots fired per cop and in some cases no hits, in most cases there are hits and most of them are not central. In those years what I was shown and told is that over 1/2 of the bad guys shot were not killed because many were not hit well.

I personally do not think this has anything at all to do with the guns.

Nevada in the 50s and 60s was the wide open west and the "gun culture" was
the regular culture.

So men in their 20s in the 1970s were a product of the 60s and 50s when they were kids (like me) and grew up shooting. Even a lot of city boys could ride a bike to the country to shoot in less then 1 hour.

Now you just done see 12 year old boys shooting their revolvers on the weekends without "adult supervision" and even then it is rare. In most states it's not even legal anymore.

So cops are taught to shoot when they go to their academy.

In the 70s most cops went to their training with many thousands of rounds of experience already behind them. In the western states that is. (Probably not so much in California, but most other western states were that way)

In the east and midwast in the 70s the shots fired to hits made was about as it is in Nevada today. And I believe it is for the exact same reason. Guns were "controlled" and that means their use was curtailed from young boys and girls. Also the fact that in the east most people live in cities and where population is denser so practical opportunities are just not available to shoot a lot.

So like a broken record I always come back to my saying: It's not the gun that matters as much as he man shooting it.

Ok Rant over.......
 
I went with the 38 special. Reasons.

1. 38 round is easy to control and quicker followup shots. I also believe police officers qualified easier with the 38 special round.
2. As time progressed, the 9mm round, high capacity semi-autos meant officers had more rounds and chances to end the gun battle.
3. I am a fan of the 357 round. Individuals than can master the round, are usually great revolver shooters. I don't feel back in the day, a lot of officers trained enough to master the 357.
 
Last edited:
Thanks gang.

So it appears the poll is skewed towards the .357 by about 3/1.

Some though prefer the .38 special, citing greater controllability, claiming that many police officers were better off with it.

Very interesting results, keep 'em coming guys and thank you to all who served in uniform with these guns and beyond.
 
The 357 was created after complaints of 38 and 45 ACP failures during the 1920's. The 38 Super was tried by some and had a small, but vocal group of supporters.

I know that locally and in many other places the 357 was not PC even in the 1970's and 80's. Our local county PD purchased their own guns and could carry anything they could qualify with until 1994 when G22's were issued. You used to see everything from BHP's to S&W 29's on officers belts.

The city PD issued S&W 65's, but only loaded with 38 ammo. The catch was that the ammo was pretty hot, bordering on true 357 loads. But that kept the politicians happy that didn't want 357 ammo being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top